Re: key error in all the proofs --- Correction of Fred

Am Fri, 16 Aug 2024 07:02:00 -0500 schrieb olcott:

On 8/16/2024 6:06 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-08-15 12:59:30 +0000, olcott said:

On 8/15/2024 3:20 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 14.aug.2024 om 23:08 schreef olcott:

On 8/14/2024 3:56 PM, Mike Terry wrote:

On 14/08/2024 18:45, olcott wrote:

On 8/14/2024 11:31 AM, joes wrote:

Am Wed, 14 Aug 2024 08:42:33 -0500 schrieb olcott:

On 8/14/2024 2:30 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-08-13 13:30:08 +0000, olcott said:

On 8/13/2024 6:23 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 8/12/24 11:45 PM, olcott wrote:

>
*DDD correctly emulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its*
*own "return" instruction final halt state, thus never
halts*
>

Which is only correct if HHH actuallly does a complete and
correct emulation, or the behavior DDD (but not the emulation
of DDD by HHH)
will reach that return.
>

A complete emulation of a non-terminating input has always
been a contradiction in terms.
HHH correctly predicts that a correct and unlimited emulation
of DDD by HHH cannot possibly reach its own "return"
instruction final halt state.

>
That is not a meaningful prediction because a complete and
unlimited emulation of DDD by HHH never happens.
>

A complete emulation is not required to correctly predict that a
complete emulation would never halt.

What do we care about a complete simulation? HHH isn't doing one.
>

Please go read how Mike corrected you.
>

Lol, dude...  I mentioned nothing about complete/incomplete
simulations.
>

*You corrected Joes most persistent error*
She made sure to ignore this correction.
>

But while we're here - a complete simulation of input D() would
clearly halt.

>
A complete simulation *by HHH* remains stuck in infinite recursion
until aborted.

>
It is aborted, so the infinite recursion is just a dream.

>
All simulating termination analyzers are required to predict what the
behavior would be when the emulation is unlimited (never aborted)
otherwise they could never report on the behavior of this function:
void Infinite_Loop()
{
   HERE: goto HERE;
}
>
Also something that you consistently ignore is that HHH is not
reporting on its own behavior. HHH is only predicting whether or not
an unlimited emulation of DDD would reach the "return" instruction of
DDD.

Yes it is, as part of DDD (being called by it). An unlimited simulation
of DDD calling an aborting HHH would halt, see my trace.

Actually HHH does not report at all. HHH just returns one value for
some inputs and another vaule for other inputs. HHH does not tell how
those values correlate with any features of the input. It is the user's
problem to interprete the inputs. The author of the program should tell
what the inputs mean but the user should be aware that the infromation
given by the author may be incorrect. The author has not proven
anything abut the interpretation of the answers by HHH.

I must go one step at a time.
So far most people have not understood the first step.
What correct simulation is and how it is correctly measured.

In this recursion(!), changing the simulator also changes the simulated.

--
Am Sat, 20 Jul 2024 12:35:31 +0000 schrieb WM in sci.math:
It is not guaranteed that n+1 exists for every n.